Lott's sin is giving Dems ammo--so he must go

Chicago Sun Times ^ | 12/15/02 | Mark Steyn

[Political Junkie Too]

If Republicans hold on to the Vacant Lott, then every single damn thing we do will be successfully filibustered...

Filibustered, possibly. Successfully, that would remain to be seen.

I think a good, old-fashioned filibuster would do a lot of good to educate the public on the workings of government, they way that impeachment and Gore 2000 got the people focused on government for a while.

Too many times, recently, just the threat of filibuster was enough to cause compromise. After a while, the threat seems empty. I say that now is the time to force one and see how it actually goes. Let's see how sustainable it is, how the public would react, how the sides will form, how genuine or disengenous the positions and players are.

If Republicans win (with Bush's help), then we regain momentum as the filibuster weapon will have become disarmed.

-PJ

[VRWC For Truth]

Lott has to go, simply because he's a Class A F***-Up.

Bump

[Poohbah]

After a while, the threat seems empty. I say that now is the time to force one and see how it actually goes. Let's see how sustainable it is, how the public would react, how the sides will form, how genuine or disengenous the positions and players are.

We got a taste of it in 1995, when the Dems provoked a train wreck.

It didn't go well for us.

If Republicans win (with Bush's help), then we regain momentum as the filibuster weapon will have become disarmed.

And the price tag for losing is much too high.

hchutch, need your ops order from 6/4/42...

[ricpic]

OK Riverman, so you've established your credentials as a right thinking person and dubbed me a racist.
The fact remains that young black males commit acts of physical assault on whites and other blacks at rates not twice as high, but in some categories (homicide is one) ten times as high as young white males.
That's a fact. And all of the self-congratulatory fatuous evasions in the world won't make it go away.

[redbaiter]

Trickle-down apartheid. That's a keeper.

[Once-Ler]

Do you really think Lott believes he could be re-elected as a Dem now?
I don't know Mississippi's political landscape, but the Dems have painted Lott as a far-righter for along time.
I have a had time believing those 40% black votes would vote for him even if he switches...Do you think Lott believes they would?

I agree this attack on Lott is stupid.
Maybe he's angry enough to cut off his nose.
I wouldn't blame him if he quit, but I think he would do more damage to his carreer by switching than quitting or stepping down from Majority Leader.

[iconoclast]

Lott has to go, simply because he's a Class A F***-Up.

Absolutely!

And as far as all this "pickin up his marbles and goin home" BS is concerned ... if I'm not mistaken he's up for election in 2004 and if this SOB is not man enough, patriot enough, and Republican enough to stick it our for a year, then f*** him and f*** his party!

If he's even a piece of a man he'll take a backseat role for a year a and then reevaluate.

[Once-Ler]

The liberals have been complaining for months that the W administration has had a hard-on to take out Saddam and made clames that W has looked no further than that goal.

I don't believe that.
I'm sure many plans have been made about how we will run that country when Saddam is gone.
It is just not politically smart to tell everyone how we want the Iraq government set up...think about it for a minute and I'm sure you think of several reasons.

I believe many republicans don't like Lott and have used this issue to try and get him replaced with a "real conservative." The fact that they have strong allies on the 'rat side has not bothered them in the least. They must believe that the 'rats think Lott is too moderate and are happy to help us get a "real conservative" in the ML possition...'cause they think they can deal easier with a "real conservative."

It looks like the "real conservatives" didn't think about what would happen when Lott was removed. They think that loyalty to the party only works one way. They think politician are not human.

I think Lott will walk if he is forced to step down.I blame the "real conservative destruction machine."
Republican control in the Presidency Senate and House doesn't happen frequently.
Maybe I should to drink the kool-aid now and avoid the rush.

[FairOpinion]

Common Tator: "The attempts by Bush and Rove to remove Lott is the single dumbest political act I have ever seen. It is like playing russian roulette with 5 chambers loaded. "

----
I agree, we only help the Democrats.

I just saw a liberal post on AOL: "They are beginning to fight within the ranks. We did not do this, their mouths and true beliefs did. Now we can sit back and watch the Republican party implode."

I think if we don't heed the warning, it may become true.

[ReleaseTheHounds]

It's rather simple when you just look at the facts as Steyn has done in this article: Lott has to resign. If he resigns from the Senate and is replaced by a Democrat named by the a Democrat governor from Mississippi, so be it. Managing the senate will be more difficult, but not terribly more difficult than what we already face. Better to be principled and RIGHT, than unprincipled (like the Democrats who have protected their sinners since time immemorial) and "in power" (and vulnerable in the PR wars for the next few election cycles). Trent Lott is a true embarrassment to all devoted and principled Republicans. We don't need Trent Lott leading the President's agenda through the Senate -- he is incapable of doing that. Goodbye!

[Reverend Bob]

I suspect you're wrong and that Lott will summon up the courage to face life in the Senate after leaving his leadership posistion. He's still got enough seniority for some choice chairmanship posistions and, if he needs to simply kill time as a back-bencher for a year or two, I suspect he'll be amply rewarded with a nice little sinecure (if that's what he wants). He's also young enough that a few years out of the spotlight could allow him to refurbish his image.

Let's carry the idea behind post #73 to it's logical conclusion however:

If Lincoln Chaffee demands a 50% increase in income taxes in order to remain a Republican, should we accede to his demands?

What if John McCain demands a repeal of the 2nd Ammendment as the price of his continued allegiance?

Capitulation to blackmail is not a way to build a successful political party, and it's certainly not the way that a party should choose it's leadership, especially a party that purports to stand for certain principles.

I do not know Lott's heart, but I do know his record of (non)accomplishment and lack of political accumen. Even those who defend him seem to do so only because they don't want the Dems to "Win". Wake up People, Lott's stepping down will not be "loss". A change in leadership is what we need. Lott is NOT the general we need for the campaign ahead. He wasn't before and definitely isn't after all of those multiple, self-inflicted gun-shot wounds to his feet.

Think of this as a political Battle of the Bulge. When Lott steps down, the Dems will over-reach and try to ratchet up the pressure for censure or some such. At this point McConnell or Nickles (or whoever our new "General" is) can "channel" Patton and slash north to Bastogne (figuratively speaking), cutting the Dems supply lines as they go (ie -- pulling Byrd and Hollings into the mix).

OK, my metaphors are overstated. My point to the "Yes, Lott is an idiot, but..." crowd is simply that one should never become so involved in the BATTLE that they lose sight of the WAR. Pyrrhic victories are not really victories at all.

[Common Tator]

If you thought he wouldn't stay in the Senate if he couldn't be Majority Leader, why do you think he would stay as a Democrat?

I think it is spelled R E V E N G E!

[EternalVigilance]

I agree with your post #92 in its entirety. Very well stated!

[EternalVigilance]

Whoops...#91.

[EternalVigilance]

"The attempts by Bush and Rove to remove Lott is the single dumbest political act I have ever seen. It is like playing russian roulette with 5 chambers loaded. "

Keeping Lott in the Majority Leadership is like playing Russian Roulette with a fully loaded single-shot.

Maybe we could call it Russian Rou'Lott'...

[No Truce With Kings]

"I don't think Lott's a racist but that's not my point."

It's not my point either, so why do you keep bringing it up? To distract attention from Lott's being an idiot? Or do you think Lott has been an efficient, effective, intelligent Majority Leader?

"I simply predict that if Lott steps down as ML he will also give up his Senate seat."

The agenda's dead if it is entrusted to Mr. Lott's care, just like in the last session. I am willing to risk his quitting. It ain't gonna happen, anyway.

[hchutch]

You mean, the one that goes:
"In carrying out the task assigned....you will be governed by the principle of calculated risk, which you will interpret to mean the avoidance of exposure of your force to attack by superior enemy forces without prospect of inflicting, as a result of such exposure, greater damage to the enemy."?

[Common Tator]

Keeping Lott in the Majority Leadership is like playing Russian Roulette with a fully loaded single-shot

Here is a little story from last night about the Republican senators conference call.

As the call began, McConnell—second in command and a Lott 
ally—delivered a history lesson. “Leaders who are ousted 
tend to leave altogether,” he said in his voice-of-doom 
baritone. “That is what Newt Gingrich did. That is what Jim 
Wright did. They don’t stick around.” If Lott left, he 
noted, the Democratic governor of Lott’s home state of 
Mississippi would name one of his own as a replacement. 
Republicans relishing the return of perks, power and 
committee chairmanships could forget it. Instead, they 
would face the kiss-your-sister chaos of a 50-50 Senate. “I
was just explaining the history,” McConnell told them.

There is not much doubt that Snowe or Chaffee would switch isles in a 50-50 senate. Bush would have to buy a Democrat. But the history says bush screws up big time in holding the senate. Why would Rino's stay. If they make any mistake Bush will fire them. Democrats stand behind their people. Ask Bill Clinton or Bob Byrd how that works. People get nervous about leaders that slit their own peoples throats for a fumble. It will be easier for Democrats to pry a Snowe lose than it will a Jeffords. And if Snowe goes, then Jeffords looks great. He will have retained his chairmanship for 2 more years.

Your choice is Lott or Daschle. I take it you want Daschle.

[BraveMan]

Big mystery huh, BraveMan? { >doink< }

Owww. Not the eye . . .

I got a question for you, WhiteMan.

racist
adj
1: based on racial intolerance; "racist remarks"
2: discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion.
n
: a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others.

No. Neither you nor I are racists yet we are apparently debating race. Veiled accusations of collusive behaviour with the poverty pimps aside, ours is not a racist conversation.

Nawww, you're right. Let's all just let the dust and the noise of our meaningless existence cover this one up; it'll go away. Keep our heads down, our backsides up and take one for the Gipper (note to self: make appt. w/proctologist). Yep, Lott's our guy. The graciously given live ammo being tossed back at us by the poverty pimps will eventually peter out . . .

See the Glory of the Royal Scam.

[PGalt]

Great article. Thanks for the post. An appeaser is not a man of principle. An apologist is the most cowardly man, for he is apologizing to the unprincipled scoundrels he sought to appease. Lott is a bundle of contradictions, the anti-man.